AJG
Regular Member
TY
Thank You...
Thank You...
Ed, again, not to comment much yet, there seems to be a lot of duplication of effort and a little intellectual thievery going on with the crop of Castle Doctrine bills and proposals this year.
And lead the effort to fend off any "bad versions" that may set us back thousands of years....Many constituents went to their legislature reps and said 5 words "Happy New Year, Castle Doctrine". So.. everyone is doing a version. VCDL will support a "correct one" if it exists. My gut says it will not this session. Dan and I went back and forth with Cucinelli on a couple points and then spent an hour on the phone going over language with Dick Black. Even Richard Gardner and Kurt Mueller have chimed in. Bob Herron also spend alot of time commenting. If it takes next session to make it perfect, then so be it.
Ed
I'd just like to see us set back about 151 years.
I can live with this as long as everyone else can be convinced to do so as well.We have been working on two important gun bills this year. The first is the Castle Doctrine and the second is the Long Gun Bill. The Long Gun Bill will streamline the sale of rifles and shot guns, by streamlining the process for sales at gun shows. The Castle Doctrine, which was our top priority, has proven to be quiet complex. On the one hand, we want to retain the extensive protections afforded by Virginia common law. On the other hand, we must avoid creating loop holes for misconduct. Dan Hawes, an attorney working with VCDL, has done numerous revisions and many people have made suggested changes.
Having a late election season and having just been elected, it has not left a lot of time for extensive research. The 2012 Legislative Session begins on Wednesday and we are simply out of time to perfect this bill. As it stands, the bill is quiet complex. However, capturing the extensive body of common law is not an easy task. You should be aware that Virginia already has broad protections imbedded in its extensive case law on this topic extending back to the 1600’s. We must be careful to avoid a misstep that would unintentionally diminish gun rights in Virginia.
A number of key gun rights leaders and I have concluded that we cannot safely introduce the Castle Doctrine bill this year and that we should thoroughly prepare for next year’s legislative session.
I’d like to thank everyone who has worked tirelessly with me in an attempt to craft the perfect Castle Doctrine Bill. I appreciate all of your help.
Dick
Richard H. Black
Senator-Elect, 13th District
21029 Rodney Lane
Leesburg, VA 20176
(703) 468-1342
SenatorBlack@usa.net
www.DickBlack4Senate.com
Yup. It's the right thing to do.I can live with this as long as everyone else can be convinced to do so as well.
Out of only 285 real bills (ignoring the joint resolutions which mostly are "atta-boys", etc.) thus far listed on the LIS site, 5 of them (HB14, HB47, HB48, SB4, SB64) are some form of Castle Doctrine. It's a tidal wave right now, it is going to take quite some effort to hold it back a full year.
TFred
He didn't say if he was going to be the sponsor, but here is where you can find the list of Senator Black's bills submitted so far:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+mbr+S83C
TFred
Add another one to the list: HB 925.I can live with this as long as everyone else can be convinced to do so as well.
Out of only 285 real bills (ignoring the joint resolutions which mostly are "atta-boys", etc.) thus far listed on the LIS site, 5 of them (HB14, HB47, HB48, SB4, SB64) are some form of Castle Doctrine. It's a tidal wave right now, it is going to take quite some effort to hold it back a full year.
TFred
Many constituents went to their legislature reps and said 5 words "Happy New Year, Castle Doctrine". So.. everyone is doing a version. VCDL will support a "correct one" if it exists. My gut says it will not this session. Dan and I went back and forth with Cucinelli on a couple points and then spent an hour on the phone going over language with Dick Black. Even Richard Gardner and Kurt Mueller have chimed in. Bob Herron also spend alot of time commenting. If it takes next session to make it perfect, then so be it.
Ed
"when (i) the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling and has committed an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling"
Ah, a fly in the ointment. Someone entering at night meets the one-of-five felony criteria which can be answered with deadly force (burglary in this case). If you must wait until an overt act has been committed against you or yours, it could be too late.
I hope user jumps in on this one because it is from him I learned this little tidbit and if I got this wrong, please do correct me.
Virginia: Self-Defense Legislation for Scheduled for House Subcommittee Consideration Tomorrow!
Tomorrow, the Criminal Law Subcommittee of the House Courts of Justice Committee will consider four “Castle Doctrine” bills that will expand your right to defend yourself and your family in your home. “Castle Doctrine” establishes the presumption that an individual who forcibly enters one’s home, business or occupied motor vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, and allows force, including deadly force, against that person. This legislation would guarantee a right thirty states have already recognized and one that needs to be realized in Virginia.
House Bill 14, sponsored by Delegate Greg Habeeb (R-8), would provide civil immunity to an occupant of a dwelling who uses any degree of physical force to defend the dwelling or another person in the dwelling.
House Bill 47, sponsored by Delegate Dickie Bell (R-20), would provide similar protections as HB 14.
House Bill 48, also sponsored by Delegate Dickie Bell (R-20), seeks to codify the "Castle Doctrine" by providing both criminal and civil liability immunity to someone who uses any degree of physical force against another person when the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling and committed an overt act.
House Bill 925, introduced by Delegate Scott Lingamfelter (R-31), would codify a version of "Castle Doctrine” to allow the use of physical force, including deadly force, by a person in his dwelling against an intruder who has committed an overt act against him or another person in the dwelling.
Please contact members of the subcommittee listed below and respectfully urge them to support the above legislation. Contact information can be found below.
any idea if they've seen Dan's draft?
I'm pretty sure they have not. When I saw TFred's post, first thing I did was to send the NRA-ILA a "what, are you nuts?" message via their website contact form. I was a more polite than that, but they clearly don't have a clue.
I had another thought about the proposal I wrote. There's all this stuff about codification of the law as it is, and how we need to wait a year to be sure that I'm right about that. But what difference does that make, really, other than to help the political machine feel comfortable about passing a bill. My feeling is that if this is what we want the law to be, regardless of what it's been, then (dammit) pass that bill.
Btw, in response to another post earlier about the no-knock warrants. That provision I wrote doesn't get rid of no-knock entry, nor does it have anything to do with the evidentiary rulings by the U.S. Sup. Ct. having to do with the reasonableness of a search in connection with the Fourth Amendment and the "exclusionary rule". What it does, and this is the heart of the common law castle doctrine, is to provide that a person who, in good faith, uses force to repel invaders, not realizing they're cops on a lawful mission, is not criminally responsible for the use of force. When people dressed like ninja burglars bust in unannounced and shoot the family dog and aim guns at the children, it is not a criminal offense to shoot them. Any bill that does not contain that provision is not the castle doctrine.
Reasonable belief may provide the remedy for not waiting for an overt act in the middle of the night... if it is forced entry in the middle of the night it seems that a reasonable person would be in fear of imminent harm.